From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Jun 10 18:20:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 11 Jun 2001 01:20:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 63491 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.180) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:20:34 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.45 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.45] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] The new approach to attitudinals Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2001 01:20:34.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6C1B630:01C0F214] From: "Jorge Llambias" la rab spir cusku di'e >Of course. No word could change the fact that true things continue to be >true >or that false things continue to be false. The speaker's percieved truth >value >is what's important, and this is what I'm talking about. The attitudinals don't change the speaker's perceived truth value either, I would think. >For example, {a'o} changes the truth value from "I state that this is true" >to >"I hope that this is true". {a'o} makes that change, only I don't see how you can call that a change in truth value. It doesn't matter, we agree on what {a'o} does, even if we disagree about how to call it. >Would you follow something like {ianai} or {ju'onai} with the statement you >believe is false, or with a true statement about what you believe is false? With a statement that I believe not to be true. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.